Comments for Boston Bible Geeks

Comment on Are Charismatics Ruining the Term ‘Charismatic’? by Christian Carnival CCCII « who am i?

Christian Carnival CCCII « who am i? — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:26:32 +0000

[...] Marchionni presents Are Charismatics Ruining the Term “Charismatic”? posted at Boston Bible Geeks, saying “It’s always interesting to see the reaction I get [...]

Comment on Are Charismatics Ruining the Term ‘Charismatic’? by larryk12309

larryk12309 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:40:09 +0000

Wait!

So if,

“Having a cool experience does not necessarily make one charismatic in the biblical sense. It’s too easy to be deceived into thinking every good feeling is of God,”

then all this time I should say I’m a “caffeinated”
Christian,

and not charismatic! ;-)

Comment on Are Charismatics Ruining the Term ‘Charismatic’? by danny

danny — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:40:36 +0000

I agree with your assessment, too. But don’t hold your breath for me to post something, my track record has never been very good at that sort of thing. =)

Comment on Are Charismatics Ruining the Term ‘Charismatic’? by Barry Wallace

Barry Wallace — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:33:21 +0000

Danny, I would agree with your perception. If it’s accurate, I would say that the influence of John Piper and C.J. Mahaney are contributing factors. I would be interested in your exploration of the possible reasons, though. Thanks.

Comment on Are Charismatics Ruining the Term ‘Charismatic’? by danny

danny — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:28:50 +0000

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Barry, it’s been interesting to see the number of Reformed charismatics grow (in my non-scientific study). I’ve thought about exploring the reasons why I think this is so, but that’ll have to wait for another day. Do you think the number is growing, or is it just me?

Diane, I hear what you’re saying, and I agree there is often a neglect of biblical teaching and doctrine in charismatic circles. However, one could flip that around and say that cessationist churches are negligent too, specifically of the biblical teaching on spiritual gifts.

Comment on Are Charismatics Ruining the Term ‘Charismatic’? by Diane R

Diane R — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:34:49 +0000

Excellent post. Sadly, even when the movement started with what Dr. Peter Wagner calls the “second wave,” (in the 1960’s) which was the mainline and Catholic Charismatics, there was a litle too much revelation over Scripture. And, with some, they didn’t even know what the gospel was as many were liberal Protestant churches. Then John Wimber came along and allowed the Kansas City prophets in and revelation took a definite lead over Scripture and good doctrine. That opened Pandora’s box for the horrible “third wave” (think Toronto and Brownsville) and the term Charismatic became toast. I would rather follow the Pentecostal deniminations that are good as it ’s much safer.

Comment on Book Review: Reasonable Faith, Pt. 3 of 3 by Barry Wallace

Barry Wallace — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:12:36 +0000

I just picked up a copy of this book, and, upon inspection, was pretty intimidated by it. However, after reading your review, I’m actually looking forward to reading it now. Thanks!

Comment on Are Charismatics Ruining the Term ‘Charismatic’? by Barry Wallace

Barry Wallace — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:53:15 +0000

Good post. I consider myself charismatic as well, and a doctrinally Reformed charismatic at that—which raises even more eyebrows!

Comment on Are Charismatics Ruining the Term ‘Charismatic’? by bmarchio

bmarchio — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:28:54 +0000

…and amen. Too bad it’s too late to put this in your top 5 posts ever, because it belongs there.

Comment on Knowing God: He Shall Testify by danny

danny — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:24:17 +0000

Hi Pete, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I actually meant to mention that book. I’m not saying Packer himself has a deficient view of the Spirit, and I’m sure that book will prove that. I’m saying his presentation in this chapter on the Holy Spirit is partial and missing a ton of good stuff. So when I ask those questions in this post, I’m really just saying ‘this chapter leaves so many questions open that it ends up being a little disappointing.’

Side note, there are 2 things I’ve noticed about this book that show it was not really written recently (it was first written 30+ years ago and updated in 1993). One, he doesn’t have footnotes recommending the reader goes and reads another book by him on a given topic (see Piper, John). If he wrote this today, the publisher would want him plugging everything he’s written, particularly if they published it.

Two, he would have notes in a chapter with something like ‘we’ll develop this more fully in chapter __.’ I’m grateful for the lack of self-advertising in the footnotes, but I think point #2 might have been helpful. This chapter is an example of that.